Allahabad High Court
Priya Vishwas Thru Husband ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS No. - 17829 of 2018
Petitioner :- Priya Vishwas Thru Husband Surejan Adhikari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey,Dileep Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
The court is convened through video conferencing.
None appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition.
Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
It transpires that on 19.11.2018, 11.01.2019, 27.03.2019, 04.04.2019 and 14.04.2019 the matter was listed, but was adjourned on one count of the other.
After having perused the pleadings on record we find that petitioner was involved in 16 different cases and he has been convicted in all the cases except the cases shown at serial No.14,15 and 16.
The petitioner has prayed for direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus petition directing and commanding the respondents to set at liberty the petitioner/detenue, because the petitioner was convicted on 06.01.2017 and 12.01.2017 under Sections 392/411 of I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in each case and in default of payment of find one month further imprisonment was awarded. It was also provided that all the sentences will run concurrently and the period under gone shall be adjusted in conviction period.
The petitioner is in jail since 22.08.2015 continuously, as such more than three years have spent in jail, but has not been released.
Learned A.G.A. filed counter affidavit annexing the report of Senior Superintendent of District Jail, Raebareli as C.A. 1 and submitted that the learned trial court has convicted the petitioner and has mentioned in the judgment of every case the sentences passed shall run concurrently and this is applicable only in relation to the sentences passed in the particular case.
It has not been mentioned that sentences will run concurrently with the conviction of previous case/cases. He further submitted that the application moved by the petitioner before the Court of concerned Additional Chief Judicial, Magistrate has also been rightly rejected on the same ground.
In this regard Section 427 of Criminal Procedure Code provides as under:-
427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence.
"(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence."
From the plain reading of Section 427 Cr.P.C. it is clear that subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which the convict was previously sentenced, unless the court directs that subsequent sentences shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. As pointed out by learned A.G.A. there is no such order and the case of the petitioner does not fall under sub-clause (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C.. Hence the petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
(Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 13.7.2021
A.K. Singh
